Landscape Ecol
DOI 10.1007/s10980-010-9567-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Pan European Ecological Network: PEEN
3
4
5
Rob H. G. Jongman • Irene M. Bouwma •
Arjan Griffioen • Lawrence Jones-Walters
Anne M. Van Doorn
6
7
Received: 22 March 2010 / Accepted: 23 December 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
•
Abstract The pan European biological and landscape diversity strategy (PEBDLS) was developed
under the auspices of the Council of Europe in order
to achieve the effective implementation of the
convention of biological diversity (CBD) at the
European level. A key element of PEBLDS has been
the development of the Pan European Ecological
Network (PEEN) as a guiding vision for coherence in
biodiversity conservation. PEEN has been developed
in three subprojects: Central and Eastern Europe,
completed in 2002; South-eastern Europe, completed
in 2006; and Western Europe, also completed in
2006. The methodology of the development of the
three maps has been broadly comparable but data
availability, differences in national databases, technical developments and geographical differences
caused variations in the detailed approach. One of
the challenges was to find common denominators for
the habitat data in Europe; this was solved differently
for the subprojects. The project has resulted in three
maps that together constitute the PEEN. They differ
in terms of ecological coherence and the need for
PR
OO
F
2
ecological corridors; for example, in Central and
Western Europe corridors are essential to provide
connectivity, while in Northern, Eastern and Southeastern Europe larger, coherent natural areas still
exist. The future steps in developing PEEN should
include the implementation of national ecological
networks and, in particular, the pursuit of international coherence through the development of transEuropean ecological corridors. The big challenge is
to develop a common approach among the over 100
European-wide agencies that are responsible for
biodiversity conservation.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Keywords Ecological network Europe
Ecological corridors Indicator species Habitat
suitability Ecological data
42
43
44
46
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
1
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
R. H. G. Jongman (&) I. M. Bouwma
A. Griffioen A. M. Van Doorn
Alterra, Wageningen UR, PO Box 47, 6700 AA
Wageningen, The Netherlands
e-mail: rob.jongman@wur.nl
A6
A7
A8
L. Jones-Walters
European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC),
PO Box 90154, 5000 LG Tilburg, The Netherlands
45
Introduction
47
The concept of ecological networks is not new.
Ecological networks have been developed over a
number of decades in several European countries;
beginning in Estonia and former Czechoslovakia in
the 1980s and in The Netherlands in 1989 (Jongman
et al. 2004). In these countries a strong land use
planning tradition created the institutional environment for allocating functions, including the recognition of nature as a designation with its own value.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
One of the main drivers for the development of
ecological networks is that biodiversity in Europe
was continuing to decline due to a decrease of habitat
quality, habitat extent and increase in fragmentation.
The ecological consequences of these processes are
the destabilisation of landscape level processes,
diminishing ecosystem functions, declining populations of natural species and a threat to their collective
sustainability (Rodoman 1974; Jongman 2002; Mander et al. 2003). There was therefore a realisation that
for many natural species the existing area and
distribution of nature reserves and national parks
was too small and fragmented (Somma et al. 2004;
Hepcan et al. 2009).
The concept of ecological connectivity is implicit
in several international conventions such as the
Ramsar convention and the Bern convention, European agreements (habitats and species directive) and
related EU policy implementation (Natura 2000). It
has become operational in national strategies
(national ecological networks) and at European level
through the pan European biological and landscape
diversity strategy (PEBLDS), Council of Europe
1996). The PEBLDS was Europe’s response to the
need for effective implementation of the convention
of biological diversity (CBD) at the European level;
the Pan European Ecological Network—PEEN
formed one of its central delivery mechanisms. The
indicative map of the pan-European ecological network was developed in the context of the following
aim (Council of Europe 1996): ‘The pan-European
ecological network addresses the development of an
ecological network at a European level. It will consist
of core areas, corridors and buffer zones. Restoration
areas will be identified where they are considered
necessary. The pan-European ecological network
aims to conserve the full range of ecosystems,
habitats, species and landscapes of European importance and to counteract the main causes for decline
by creating the right spatial and environmental
conditions’.
The aim of establishing ecological networks is
therefore the protection of nature and biodiversity.
Their development has been stimulated by a combination of science and nature management practice.
In the USA and some European countries (e.g.
Portugal), the ecological network is termed ‘Greenway’ (Ahern 2004) and it attempts to integrate wider
societal interests with biodiversity conservation such
as outdoor recreation and builds on the tradition of
greenbelt planning and parkway planning (Jongman
and Pungetti 2004). Bennet and Wit (2001) and
Bennett (2004) define an ecological network as,
‘‘A coherent system of natural and/or semi-natural
landscape elements that is configured and managed
with the objective of maintaining or restoring
ecological functions as a means to conserve biodiversity while also providing appropriate opportunities
for the sustainable use of natural resources’’. The
aims of the pan-European ecological network were
further elaborated to ensure that (Rientjes and
Roumelioti 2003):
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
–
a full range of good quality ecosystems, habitats,
species and landscapes of European importance is
conserved;
habitats are large enough to guarantee key species
a favourable conservation status;
sufficient opportunities exist for dispersal and
migration of species;
damaged parts of the key environmental systems
are restored; and
the key environmental systems are buffered from
threats.
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
The Pan European Ecological Network presents a
vision for the development of coherency in ecological
networks throughout Europe and its implementation
by national and regional governments. A method was
therefore developed to take into consideration both a
European perspective and national ecological networks and, when applicable, to include regional
networks developed within countries.
The Pan European Ecological Network project
was developed in three stages. The first PEEN
subproject was carried out for Central and Eastern
Europe (Bouwma et al. 2002) and had to deal with
restricted data availability. This was also the case for
the second subproject in South-eastern Europe that
covers the Balkan, Greece and Turkey (Biró and
Grobelnik 2006). Although there was not a perfect set
of data for the third subproject in Western Europe,
this subproject was able to make use of developments
in data availability and new ancillary data (Jongman
et al. 2006a).
The indicative map of the pan-European ecological network in Central and Eastern Europe (PEENCEE) was presented at the fifth ‘Environment for
Europe’ ministerial conference in Kyiv, in May 2003,
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
–
–
PR
OO
F
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
–
–
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
where the results were received as an important
contribution to the establishment of PEEN and the
promotion of ecological networks in general. At the
Belgrade ministerial conference in 2007 the whole
process and all three maps were reported (Bonnin
et al. 2007).
This paper presents the common approach and
regional differences in relation to the PEEN project
for the development of the PEEN vision and maps for
Central and Eastern Europe (PEEN-CEE), Southeastern Europe (PEEN-SEE) and Western Europe
(PEEN-WE). It presents the results and discusses the
differences.
167
Data and methods
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
All three of the pan European networks maps were
developed at a scale of 1:3,000,000. For the design of
the map data were used that were consistently
available for Europe or the project area. Species
with a widespread occurrence in Europe, but for
which data were not available for all Europe or at
least for the project area, were not used. They would
have been confused with species or habitats with a
regionally specific distribution. In the development of
the maps two lines of analysis were followed: (1) the
analysis of habitats; and (2) the analysis of species
requirements in relation to habitat size, quality and
extent. Both lines were integrated in the final stage
(Fig. 1). The core of the methodology was the same
for all three maps. Adaptations were made in the
methodology to take the differences between regions
into account. For PEEN-CEE the land cover data that
were used for the determination of core areas of the
network were only available at different levels of
accuracy; this caused differences in overall accuracy
of determining habitats (Table 1). Three land cover
databases were used: CORINE 2000 (http://www.eea.
europa.eu) for the EU (then candidate) countries;
PELCOM (Mücher et al. 2001) for Belarus, Ukraine
and the western part of Russia; and the IGBP-DIS for
the eastern part of European Russia (Loveland and
Belward 1997). The IGBP-DIS was used as common
denominator as it is the most general map for analysis. In PEEN-WE the Norwegian and Swiss national
land cover maps had to be integrated with the CORINE land cover map to develop a composite habitat
map. General habitat categories (GHC’s), Bunce
Land cover
Europe
Species list
Europe
EnZ
EnZ
Land Cover
per EnZ
Species list
per EnZ
PR
OO
F
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
DEM
Land cover
per AEnZ
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
Habitat
conditions
Habitat conditions
per species and
AEnZ
Habitat map per zone
Merging into PEENWE habitat map
Fig. 1 Procedure for identifying core areas for the PEEN-WE
region
et al. 2008) have been used to develop a common
legend. In all phases of the projects intensive interaction was maintained with stakeholders from policy
and science in order to check the validity of the
scenarios and ecological content.
The PEEN is based on habitat maps showing
existing non-fragmented natural and semi-natural
areas that are considered large enough to sustain
viable populations of large species and species of
European importance requiring large areas. The
subproject PEEN-WE includes Europe from the Polar
Circle in Norway through to Crete, Sicily and
Gibraltar. Madeira and the Canary islands have
not been included as they are a separate biome
(Macaronesian) and are situated at a large distance
from the European mainland. However, for nature
conservation they are of utmost importance because
of their tertiary island endemics. The area needed for
the survival of species differs largely (from one to
another) in particular due to climatic and geographical conditions. Habitat maps had to be developed
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
Landscape Ecol
Source
Used for
Coverage
Digital elevation model
USGS Data centre
Habitat types
All
Hydrology (rivers, lakes)
National borders
ESRI, WDBII, Bartholomew
ESRI, WDBII
Corridors
Background
All
All
Towns and cities
GEOnet Names Server
Background
All
Roads
ESRI
Rivers
Bartholomew
PR
OO
F
Table 1 Data used in the PEEN projects
Dataset
Author Proof
Topographic information
Counterchecking corridors All
Internationally protected areas
Ramsar sites
UNEP-WCMC
World heritage sites
UNEP-WCMC
Man and biosphere reserve sites UNEP-WCMC
River corridors
All
Protected areas
All
Protected areas
All
Protected areas
All
Natura 2000
European Environmental Agency
Protected areas norway
UNEP On line GIS and map database Protected areas
Internationally acknowledged areas
BirdLife International
Prime butterfly areas
Butterfly foundation
EU15
Norway
Protected areas
All
Protected areas
All
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Important bird areas
Protected areas
Landcover information
PELCOM
Alterra
Habitat types
Russia (not entirely to
Ural)
IGBP-DIS global land cover
IGBP
Habitat types
Eastern Russia
Corine land cover (CLC2000)
European environment agency
Habitat types
EU15
LC Database Norway
Nijos
Habitat types
Norway
LC database Switzerland
WSL
Habitat Types
Switzerland
Peatlands
Wetland International
Habitat types
CEE-region
Coastal systems of Europe
EUCC
Habitat types
West and Central Europe
Boreal forests
Taiga rescue network
Habitat types
Russia
Other
Biogeographical regions
European environment agency
Habitat types
All
Potential natural vegetation
Alterra
Habitat types
All
Soil map
European environmental
stratification
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
FAO-Unesco Soil Database
Habitat types
All
Wageningen UR
Habitat types
All
based on land cover data and ancillary data, such as
digital elevation models, protected areas databases
and important bird areas; this was because land cover
maps do not deliver sufficient ecological information
as most data they provide are too general and do not
include species dynamics and geographical and
biogeographical differences (Table 1). For PEENWE (Jongman et al. 2006a) use was made of the
environmental stratification of Europe (Metzger et al.
2005) so that habitats in different biogeographical
regions could be identified. As mountain ranges play
an important role use was also made of a digital
elevation model (DEM) of Europe in order to
distinguish between high mountains and lowlands.
In the PEEN-CEE and the PEEN-SEE subprojects
shortcomings were observed by experts reviewing the
results. These were mainly that the method applied
might underestimate the value of fragmented landscapes and small scale (hedgerow) landscapes; only
large unfragmented landscapes are identified in land
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
cover maps. In the PEEN-WE subproject, where this
is even more important, small scale areas have been
analysed separately for their connectivity function.
Here regional expert knowledge was an important
source of information as land cover data deliver
insufficient information; it was used specifically for a
second round of analysis to check for connectivity
especially in urbanised and small scale agricultural
landscapes (Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands).
In order to identify existing non-fragmented natural and semi-natural areas considered large enough
to sustain viable populations of species of European
importance the following steps were conducted
(Fig. 1):
linked (Bunce et al. 2008). Based on the compiled
land cover map of the region, habitats were identified
by overlaying various land cover classes with additional information about the environmental zones of
Europe (EnZ), (Fig. 2), altitude and soil information
(wet soils, calcareous soils, etc.) using:
289
290
291
292
293
294
–
–
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
–
–
size of the habitat area;
naturalness for the biogeographic region/environmental zone; which in practice meant that most
coniferous forests in the Continental and Atlantic
zones were not included as their function is
predominantly for wood production, while the
coniferous forests in the high Alpine region were
included because they are natural; and
importance for natural species occurring in the
region.
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
The next step in the identification of large nonfragmented areas was the selection of indicator
species and then to link them to the identified
habitats (Fig. 1). This was done by analysis of
existing priority species data and the habitat requirements of their populations. Experts in various countries were consulted about certain species and about
the basic lists. Given the scale of the map, the grain of
the land cover information and the available species
data, it was decided to consider only larger mammal
and bird species as possible indicator species for
PEEN-WE and PEEN-SEE. Migrating fish were
included for PEEN-CEE through an assessment of
the accessibility of rivers and the presence of existing
barriers. In PEEN-SEE they have not been included;
in PEEN-WE they were substituted by the occurrence
of natural, non-regulated larger rivers that are considered as a proxy for the existence of migrating fish
(in both subprojects these measures were taken
because of a lack of harmonised European data).
For PEEN-WE it was possible to use the European
environmental stratification (Fig. 2) to select different habitat sizes for species in different parts of
Europe; for example, the potential density of wolf
and brown bear is lower in boreal Scandinavia than in
the Iberian Peninsula and the Balkan (Swenson
2000). Moreover habitats do differ between different
altitudinal bands. This means that within the environmental stratification for identification of habitats
substrata have been identified (altitudinal environmental zones, AEnZ) based on the DEM for Europe
(Jongman et al. 2006b). Grasslands at higher altitudes
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
284
285
286
287
288
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
development of a combined land cover map for
the entire region (CORINE, Switzerland and
Norway for PEEN-WE; CORINE, PELCOM
and IGBP for PEEN-CEE);
development of a simplified but ecologically
interpreted habitat classification map based on
land cover data and ancillary data;
identification of habitats of sufficient size according to the working scale of the map, in order to
identify size classes based on indicator species;
identification of Emerald Network sites (the
Council of Europe in 1996 launched the Emerald
Network, which is based on the same principles
as the legally binding Natura 2000 network within
the European Union (Council of Europe 2009),
Zapovedniks (nationally protected sites in Russia,
Ukraine and Belarus (Sobolev et al. 1995) and
NATURA 2000 sites [protected under the EU
Species and Habitats Directive, Commission of
the European Communities (2003)];
identification of Ramsar sites, important bird
areas (IBAs) and prime butterfly areas;
identification of area requirements of indicator
species;
linking indicator species to the identified habitats;
and
estimation of the area required in order to
maintain sustainable populations of the indicator
species.
PR
OO
F
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
In all three subprojects the first step was to develop
a combined land cover map for the region based
on the existing land cover data. In Western Europe
the integration was made by using general habitat
categories (GHC’s) that allowed the three maps to be
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
Landscape Ecol
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
PR
OO
F
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Fig. 2 Environmental
stratification of Europe
(Metzger et al. 2005). The
zones are ALN Alpine
North, ALS Alpine South,
ATN Atlantic North, ATC
Atlantic Central, LUS
Lusitanian, BOR Boreal,
NEM Nemoral, CON
Continental, PAN
Pannonian, MDN
Mediterranean North, MDM
Mediterranean Mountains,
MDS Mediterranean South
are identified as alpine grasslands, but these altitudes
are different for different latitudes. For Alpine North
(ALN, Scandinavia) the border between low and high
has been identified at 400 m altitude, while in Alpine
South (ALS, eg. Alps, Pyrenees, Carpathian) three
zones have been identified below 700, from 700 to
1200 m and above 1200 m. In the Mediterranean
mountains zone (MDM) the difference between low
and high is identified at 1000 m. Various types of
grasslands such as calcareous grasslands have been
identified by interpreting the CORINE land cover
map with help of the ancillary data such as the
national soil maps and geological data.
Mammal and bird species have been selected on
their existing international protection status: species
occurring in the annexes of the EU Habitats and Birds
Directives (Commission of the European Communities 2003), cross checked with the Bern Convention—Annex II and the vulnerable-extinct status of
species according to EBBC or IUCN. For Western
Europe in total 84 bird species and 14 mammal
species were selected and then differentiated for
EnZ’s. For South-eastern Europe 90 bird species and
20 mammal species (Biró and Grobelnik 2006) and
for Central and Eastern Europe 115 bird species and
19 mammal species were selected (Bouwma et al.
2002).
The importance of species for PEEN was identified in relation to their occurrence in European
habitats. For PEEN-WE the occurrence of habitats
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
Landscape Ecol
Table 2 Simplified habitat classification for forest habitats of Western Europe based on CORINE 2000, Norwegian land cover and
the Swiss land cover
Others
Habitat
Environmental Zone
CORINE
Broad-leaved forest
ALN, BOR, ATN
CORINE
Coniferous forest
ALN, ATN
CORINE
Mixed forest
ALN, NEM, BOR, ATN
Norway
Non-productive forest. A lot
of mountain forest
ALN, BOR, NEM
CORINE
Transitional woodland-shrub
CORINE
Broad-leaved forest
CORINE
Coniferous forest
CORINE
Mixed forest
PR
OO
F
Author Proof
Scandinavia
Land cover database
ALN, BOR, NEM
ATC, ATN, LUS, MDM, MDN, MDS, PAN,
CON, ALS
ATC, ATN, MDM, MDN, MDS, PAN,
ALS
ATC, ATN, LUS,MDM, MDN, MDS, PAN,
ALS, CON
CORINE
Burnt areas
Switzerland
Forests
MDM, MDN, MDS, ALS, LUS
CORINE
Transitional woodland-shrub
Switzerland
Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation
associations
ALS,MDM, CON
ATC, ATN, LUS,MDM, MDN, MDS, PAN, ALS
CON
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Forest
The codes of the environmental zones (EnZ) are given in Fig. 2 (Metzger et al. 2005)
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
was specified for EnZ’s (Table 2). Within these zones
species were linked to habitat types including the
threshold estimated for survival of a population per
region (Table 3). All the threshold areas were identified for the environmental zones and later merged
into the joint legend for European habitats as there
are differences in carrying capacity between boreal
and mediterranean regions.
The size thresholds for different habitat areas were
determined to support sustainable populations according to a number of steps. First species were linked to
the identified habitat type and habitat types were
identified for each EnZ. Then standards were assigned
to each species based on the minimum population size
considered large enough to be sustainable in the longterm. This allowed the minimum size of the areas
needed to support viable populations of all selected
species, per habitat type, to be estimated (Table 3).
For determining the viability of species different
thresholds in area size per habitat type were set,
related to estimated population size. ‘Very large
areas’ are defined as: ‘‘greater than five times the
minimum area required to make the long-term
survival of all populations of the selected species
quite probable’’. ‘Large areas’ (defined as: ‘‘two times
the minimum area required to make the long-term
survival of all populations of the selected species quite
probable’’) make it possible for the present population
of the selected species to occur in that location.
However, when isolated, these areas may suffer
the loss of some species and immigration might be
required; connection to other areas or area enlargement is therefore recommended. Areas with a suboptimal size were estimated to maintain a maximum
of 70% of the selected species populations; the most
demanding species can only be maintained or restored
by either enlarging habitat size or by making connections with comparable habitats by corridors,
or both.
The required minimum area sizes (considered as
sub-optimal for the various habitats) range from:
50 km2 for wetlands, peat lands and grasslands; to
300 km2 for different types of forests. Habitat area
size has been calculated in three classes. The spatial
patterns of habitat types that exceed each of the
thresholds were assessed in a GIS analysis.
The identification of corridors for the pan-European ecological network in PEEN-CEE was based on
the location of forested landscapes, known bird
migration routes, mountain ranges and river related
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
Landscape Ecol
Table 3 Mammal species, their occurrence in environmental zones and the estimated claim on habitat
ALN ALS BOR NEM CON ATN ATC LUS PAN MDN MDM MDS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Castor fiber
Beaver
4
Alopex lagopus
Polar fox
7
Lutra lutra
Otter
Mustela lutreolaa
European mink
Canis lupusa
Wolf
Author Proof
a
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
6
7
8
8
Lynx lynx
Lynx
Lynx pardinaa
Pardel lynx
8
Rupicapra rupicapra
Gems/chamois
5
8
Capra hircus (aegagrus) Ibex
5
Ursus arctos
Brown bear
Cervus elaphus
corsicanus
Red deer
Alces alces
Moose
Ramgofer taramdis
femmicus
Reindeer
4
4
4
5
Forest dormouse 8
Gulo gulo
4
8
8
8
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
8
8
8
5
PR
OO
F
EnZs
7
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
8
5
8
6
The bold values are excluded in Annex 1 of the European Habitats and Species Directive and therefore not included here
a
European priority species. Habitat size classes for a sustainable population: 1: \10 km2, 2: 10–50 km2, 3: 50–150 km2, 4:
150–300 km2, 5: 300–600 km2, 6:600–1000 km2, 7: 1000–2000 km2, 8: [2000 km2. Mustela lutreola: Normandy, Brittany and
Lunebürger Heide; Canis lupus: all EU 15 except Finland; Lynx lynx: all Europe except Finland and Baltic states; Lynx pardina: only
Iberian Peninsula; Cervus elaphus corsicanus: only Corsica; Rangifer tarandus fenicus: only Finnish forest Reindeer. The following
mammal species have not been considered as they are marine mammals: Monachus monachus, Phoca hispida (Botnica and
saimensis), Halichoerus grypus, Phoca vitulina. For the legend of the EnZ see Fig. 2
417
418
wetlands. All corridors were discussed with regional
experts. For PEEN-WE corridors were based on:
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
–
–
–
–
–
–
bird migration routes;
the need for connectivity between core areas,
based on their size required to support the
connectivity needs of mobile species that had
been identified as related to the habitat;
relative forest density per km2 in areas between
large habitat blocks and smaller areas and
between small habitat blocks based on forest
presence in the land cover map;
location of hedgerow landscapes (small scale farming areas) based on expert information and situated
mainly in CORINE land cover classes 20, 21, 22—
that include small scale agricultural landscapes
potentially functioning as corridors between core
areas;
location of mountain ranges (part of habitat
classes);
location of natural or semi-natural rivers;
–
–
expert judgment (project members and consulted
experts); and
comparison with existing national networks (core
areas and corridors).
437
438
439
440
Results
441
PEEN project has resulted in three maps: the map for
Central and Eastern Europe (PEEN-CEE), (Fig. 3);
the map of South-eastern Europe (PEEN-SEE),
(Fig. 4); and the map of Western Europe (PEENWE), (Fig. 5). All three maps have a comparable
legend showing the three categories for habitat size
needed for population survival (marginal, 100%,
greater than five times population size). In all three
maps existing protected areas have been included
such as: Zapovedniks in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine;
Natura 2000 (European Union); and Emerald sites
(Berne Convention outside European Union); official
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
PR
OO
F
Landscape Ecol
Fig. 3 The map of PEEN for Central and Eastern Europe (Bouwma et al. 2002)
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
Ramsar convention sites. Sites known to be important
but not protected, such as important bird areas
(IBA’s) and prime butterfly areas, were not included
but were used for checking the accuracy of the maps.
When needed the map was corrected and the
correction was checked with local experts.
The PEEN-CEE map (Fig. 3) shows ecological
coherence in the Russian taiga forest and tundra that
still can act as a coherent ecological system. The
wetlands of Pripjat and Polesia also function as a major
core area as do the steppe grasslands in south-east
European Russia around the delta of the Volga. Alpine
habitats only occur in the Carpathian and Ural mountains. In general, towards the south and the west fragmentation has occurred and for ecological coherence
ecological corridors are needed. They have been
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
PR
OO
F
Landscape Ecol
Fig. 4 The map of PEEN for South-eastern Europe (Biró et al. 2006)
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
indicated on the map by lines. Two types of corridors
are indicated: forested corridors; and river and wetland
corridors.
In PEEN-SEE (Fig. 4) the major habitat types that
form core areas are forests, saline marshes and other
marshlands, various types of grasslands and mountain
habitats. Alpine habitats are restricted to the eastern
part of Turkey, the Rodopi and Balkan Mountains
and the Dalmatian Alps. Forest and grassland habitats
are dominant. Fragmentation is regional and partly
due to differences in natural habitats. All terrestrial
corridors are forest corridors as this is the major
habitat type. These are indicated by arrows. The
major species corridors, however, are the long
distance migration corridors for birds from Central
and Eastern Europe over the Bosporus and the
Caucasus to Africa and western Asia.
The PEEN-WE (Fig. 5) map includes major core
areas of rivers bogs and wetlands, forest, heathlands
and Mediterranean scrub, several grassland types and
alpine habitats. Fragmentation is much stronger than
in the PEEN-CEE and PEEN-SEE. The major
coherent nature areas are found in Scandinavia, the
Alps and in the Iberian mountain ranges. Western
Europe is highly urbanised and therefore nature is
highly fragmented. The structure of the network
contains many more ecological corridors than in the
other two subprojects. However, this process of
fragmentation is already clearly visible in the western
part of PEEN-CEE (Fig. 6).
In all three subprojects ecological corridors have
been identified. In PEEN-CEE and PEEN-SEE these
have been mainly indicated on the basis of habitat
pattern and following consultation with regional
experts. In PEEN-WE experts were consulted but
use was also made of existing national ecological
network (NEN) plans that, in that period, were partly
available and included ecological corridors. That
means that the ecological corridors in PEEN-WE
have different origins. For Denmark ecological
corridors were proposed based on habitat information; these were then discussed and decided upon in
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
Landscape Ecol
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
PR
OO
F
Fig. 5 The map of PEEN
for Western Europe
(Jongman et al. 2006a)
consultation with landscape planning experts. For
The Netherlands use was made of the national
ecological network and its robust corridors which
were included in the rural development plan (Ministry
of ANF 2006). For Germany the parallel process of
developing the ecological networks for the regional
units represented by the Bundesländer was utilised
(see Ssymank et al. 2005). Use has also been made of
NGO projects such as the Alpine corridor project of
WWF. As the maps are ‘live’ documents not all
information, particularly about ecological corridors,
could be integrated. For Great Britain the information
developed by Natural England became available too
late to be included (Catchpole 2007).
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Fig. 6 Main ecological corridors in Poland for mammals such
as wolfs (Jedrzejewski et al. 2005)
It is generally assumed that to provide for the
adequate protection of biodiversity, a specified area
of land in any country should be designated; thus, in
the convention on biological diversity (CBD) 10% is
mentioned as a minimum area of the land that should
be in protected areas per country. This figure is,
however, a political construct and its effectiveness for
biodiversity conservation has not been proven. As
figures tend to live a life of their own in a policy
environment, it is now set as a target in the plans for
ecological networks of the German Bundesländer
(Von Haaren and Reich 2006).
Land use change, infrastructure planning and
climate change are important challenges for the
development of effective ecological networks worldwide. International (cross-border) cooperation and
renewal of national and regional strategies for
biodiversity, as well as evidence of their effectiveness, is required. This presents a challenge for policy
makers, land managers and planners, as well as for
the research community that supports them. This is
clearly the key challenge for the implementation of
ecological networks as, at present, within the European Union, Norway and Switzerland around 120
regional and national governments and agencies share
the responsibility for biodiversity conservation. Real
ecological networks are being developed at the
country or regional level, but at the European and
global level there are mainly visions. In general the
size of network components serves as a criterion of
the network hierarchy (Mander et al. 2003). Thus,
mega-scale ecological networks can be considered at
global level such as the Atlantic flyways (Boere et al.
2006); and the macro-scale of ecological networks is
represented by macro-regional-level plans such as
PEEN (Bouwma et al. 2002; Jongman et al. 2006),
the Wildlands project (Noss 1992) or national level
projects within larger countries such as Russia
(Sobolev et al. 1995). Most ecological networks have
been planned at the mesoscale, and these include
examples such as the Cheshire ECONET (http://
www.cheshire.gov.uk/SREP/NHE_Econet_index.htm)
and the Dutch Ecological Network (Jongman et al.
2006b). The most detailed analyses and implementation schemes have been undertaken at a microscale, for example increasing the accessibility of
streams for Salmonid fish (see http://www.tweed
foundation.org.uk) or adapting forest management to
prevent fragmentation (Harris 1984).
PR
OO
F
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
526
Discussion
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
The PEEN project was initiated during a period of
great political and related policy change in Europe;
the data that could be used and its quality was
therefore very much dependent on the sources and the
moment in time that it was abstracted. The land cover
data, especially for the PEEN-CEE map, had different sources with different pixel sizes and legends and
direct habitat interpretation was not possible. The
available land cover categories had to be utilised, but
resulted in coarse habitat categories. It was therefore
only possible to use the lowest common denominator
in order to develop a common legend. In this case it
was the IGBP-DIS, used for eastern part of European
Russia (Loveland and Belward 1997).
The land cover data used for PEEN-WE also had
three different sources: CORINE Land cover; the
Swiss land cover map; and the Norwegian land cover
map, each with a different legend. This required the
development of a series of interpretation steps that
would lead to harmonised habitat maps. Other databases, such as soil maps, river basin maps, geomorphological databases and geological maps could not be
used at the European level due to differences in
approach between European countries; however, it was
possible to use certain specific information, such as for
calcareous soils.
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
PEEN does fulfil a role in developing a vision for
coherence in natural habitats for Europe, The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) aims to conserve migratory species throughout their range. One
of the agreements under the aegis of the CMS focuses
on ‘African–Eurasian Migrant Waterbirds’. The flyways of birds as a whole must be considered as
ecological networks linking Siberian, European and
African wetlands. Flyways are defined as: the entire
range of a migratory bird species (or groups of related
species or distinct populations of a single species)
through which it moves on an annual basis from the
breeding grounds to non-breeding areas, including
intermediate resting and feeding places as well as the
area within which the birds migrate (Boere et al.
2006). This links Siberian and Greenland habitats to
those in Western Europe and Africa and, in this way,
emphasizes the importance of coherency in European
nature. PEEN gives that coherency a territorial basis.
At the pan-European level, the convention on the
conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Bern convention, adopted in 1979) binds contracting parties to the protection of habitats and
species of European concern and promotes cooperation between countries for the protection of migratory species. The recommendation, adopted within
the convention, on the conservation of natural areas
outside protected areas specifically addresses these
issues (Recommendation 25, adopted in 1991). It
encourages the conservation and, where necessary,
the restoration of ecological corridors, habitat types
and landscape features that are important for wildlife
conservation.
Connectivity can have several forms. It can be
flyways as for migratory birds including stepping
stones, but also terrestrial or river corridors. The most
obvious terrestrial corridors are forest corridors, but
they can also exist as wetland/river related corridors
or mountain corridors.
The Species and Habitats Directive and the Birds
Directive form the main legal framework for protecting nature and biodiversity in the EU; together
they implement some of the international requirements outlined above, including the Bern convention
(Commission of the European Communities 2007).
Article 3 of the Habitats Directive states that ‘‘where
they consider it necessary, member states shall
endeavour to improve the ecological coherence of
Natura 2000 by maintaining, and where appropriate
developing, features of the landscape which are of
major importance for wild fauna and flora, as referred
to in Article 10’’.
Connectivity is considered a task of national or
regional competent authorities. It is recognised that
the implementation of connectivity measures may be
constrained by the lack of detailed knowledge of the
ecological requirements of species and habitats.
Article 18 of the Habitats Directive therefore calls
for research and exchange of information. It specifically states that: ‘‘Particular attention shall be paid to
scientific work necessary for the implementation of
Articles 3 and 10, and transboundary co-operative
research between member states shall be encouraged’’. Conservation actions under other EU legislation may also help to deliver connectivity measures
required under the Birds and Habitats Directives. In
particular, the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
includes measures, such as the development of river
basin management plans that will help to maintain and
restore connectivity in the wider environment (Commission of the European Communities 2007). However, this also means that no authority has the
responsibility for continental European corridors.
Their development depends solely on the willingness
of countries and regions to cooperate. This is not an
effective approach as countries have an inside focus
and there is no incentive for European cooperation.
National and regional ecological networks are always
defined and constructed within a complex interaction
of specific political, social, economic, and natural
conditions resulting in specific cultural traditions.
Thus, perceptions of nature and interpretations of the
same words differ across borders. The key is therefore
to focus on interactions that might occur between
regions, levels, hierarchies, organisations, NGOs, and
departments. A European initiative is needed for the
implementation ecological connectivity at the European level as national initiatives will only cross one
border and do not have a European view.
A further complication of present conservation
policy is that, although the EU Habitats Directive
recognises that priority habitats and species need to
be conserved, it does not provide any accommodation
for the changes that can take place to ecosystems over
time, through succession and inherent ecosystem
dynamics (Evans 2006), and does not give guidelines
for the design of ecological corridors. Some research
has been done on how species respond to the
PR
OO
F
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
cumulative effects of land use and climate change
(Devictor et al. 2008). Site-based conservation strategies, whether local or linked to the Natura 2000
network, may not be written to provide a response to
such challenges. A shifting climate could result in
species extinctions within designated areas or movement of species populations towards sites not optimally designed for the delivery of conservation
objectives or within other countries. Well designed
ecological corridors are therefore also required for
the ecological network of Europe and the first studies
have been carried out (Vos et al. 2008).
Ecological corridors can be designed or make use
of existing landscape structures. However, proof is
needed that these structures might function as such.
For many centuries transhumance has existed in
Europe as part of the agricultural system (Bunce et al.
2004). For Spain this has resulted in a network of
north–south drove roads (Cañadas), hundreds of
kilometres in length, which have been functioning
as corridors for species and propagules (Manzano
et al. 2005). In the framework of the PEEN-WE
project a study has been carried out on the role of the
Cañadas as north–south corridors, but so far no
conclusions could be drawn in relation to their actual
function as their condition is unknown (Bunce et al.
2006). Part are still functioning, part have changed
their function. They have therefore not been included.
Corridors are being developed at the national level
and terrestrial ecological corridors at the European
level only exist at the conceptual level of PEEN.
Ecological corridors are being developed for national
purposes (Fig. 7). Initiatives however do exist to
coordinate within countries (between regions) and
between countries; as is evident from the outcomes of
the Vilm meeting (Ssymank et al. 2005) and the
Bialowieza meeting (Jedrzejewski and Jedrzejewski
2008) which convened in order to explore such
issues.
The different levels of implementation of ecological networks imply that data requirements are
different and that different parties are involved as
stakeholders. For ecological networks to be implemented the inclusion of the right stakeholders at the
right level is therefore essential. For the international,
European level agreements equivalent to those for
flyways do not yet exist, but they are needed. Success
in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development requires not only that a diverse range of
planning initiatives should be developed for the
design and management, in this case specifically of
ecological networks, but also that a range of stakeholders and land use and management interests
should be involved.
749
750
751
752
753
Conclusion
754
PR
OO
F
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
The PEEN project was successful in reaching its goal
to promote the idea of a pan-European vision of
biodiversity conservation through a European ecological network. However, there are three important
challenges for the further development of a coherent
ecological network. Knowledge transfer is needed as
well as new knowledge especially in relation to the
impact of changing environmental and land use
conditions on species and habitats in the wider
countryside. Climate and global change will affect
the patterns of many ecological and other relationships in the landscape, potentially leading to a level
of complexity that may prove intractable and difficult
to resolve. Research on changing population patterns
in relation to landscape permeability should be
directed towards the provision of essential knowledge
needed for the limitation and prevention of irreversible damage, adaptation and mitigation measures. In
the present situation, where countries are pursuing
national initiatives at the expense of international and
cross boundary cooperation, the major problem is that
European ecological corridors are not being developed; a situation that is only exacerbated because
there is presently no responsible institution or coordination mechanism in place. That means that
coherence between countries and regions is hard to
realise in practice.
Developing connectivity is one of the recommendations of the CBD Conference of Parties in Nagoya
(Japan) in October 2010. Ecological networks need to
be developed at the field and regional scales, and at
the national and trans-national scales. Monitoring
habitat diversity, and not just connectivity, is a key
element in any biodiversity strategy for agricultural
landscapes. Quantifying the economic benefits of
ecological networks and making them explicit
through interdisciplinary research and integrated
long-term research on the social, economic and
ecological mechanisms that maintain biodiversity
and its ecological services is a clear necessity.
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
Acknowledgments The preparation of an indicative PEEN
maps started in 1999, was finalised in 2006 and reported to the
European Ministers of Environment in 2007. We acknowledge
all those who made the work possible by funding it, the
Ministry of Agriculture Nature and Food Quality of The
Netherlands through its Policy Supporting Research
Instrument, the Dutch BBI-MATRA fund, the Council of
Europe and the Swiss Government. We also acknowledge the
Walloon Government for their support as well as the national
and international data providers that made the technical
development of the maps possible, the Committee of Experts
for the development of the Pan-European Ecological Network
that supported the process from its inception, and the hundreds
of policy advisors who have been consulted. We are also
grateful to the stakeholders who made their knowledge and
data available for this project. Without their willingness to
support and contribute the project would have been impossible
in the context of the complex situation in Europe that has
prevailed throughout this decade.
814
References
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
Ahern JF (2004) Greenways in the USA, theory, trends and
prospects. In: Jongman RHG, Pungetti GP (eds) Ecological networks and greenways, concept, design and
implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 34–55
Bennett G (2004) Integrating biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use, lessons learnt from ecological networks.
IUCN Gland, Switzerland
Bennet G, Wit P (2001) The development and application of
ecological networks, a review of proposals. Lessons learnt
from ecological networks. IUCN/AIDEnvironment,
Amsterdam
Biró E, Bouwma I, Grobelnik V (2006) Indicative map of the
Pan European Ecological Network in South-eastern Europe. Technical Background document, Tilburg, ECNCEuropean Centre for Nature Conservation, ECNC Technical Report series
Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA (eds) (2006) Waterbirds
around the world. The stationery office, Edinburgh, p 960
Bonnin M, Bruszik A, Delbaere B, Lethier H, Richard D, Rientjes S, Van Uden G, Terry A (2007) The Pan European
Ecological Network: taking stock. Counc Europe nat
environ 146:116
Bouwma IM, Jongman RHG Butovsky RO (2002) Indicative
map of the pan-European ecological network for central
and Eastern Europe. Technical background document.
ECNC, Technical report series, Tilburg/Budapest, p 101
Bunce RGH, Pérez-Soba M, Jongman RHG, Gómez-Sal A,
Herzog F Austad I (2004) Transhumance and biodiversity
in European mountains. Report of the EU FP5 project
Transhumount. IALE publication series nr 1. p 321
Bunce RHG, De Aranzabal I, Schmitz MF, Pineda FD (2006)
A review of the role of Drove Roads (Cañadas) as ecological corridors. Alterra-report 1428
Bunce RHG, Metzger MJ, Jongman RHG, Brandt J, de Blust
G, Elena Rossello R, Groom GB, Halada L, Hofer G,
Howard DC, Kovář P, Mücher CM, Padoa-Schioppa E,
Paelinx D, Palo A, Perez-Soba M, Ramos IL, Roche P,
Skånes H, Wrbka T (2008) A standardized procedure for
surveillance and monitoring European habitats and provision of spatial data. Landscape Ecol 23:11–25
Catchpole R (2007) England Habitat Network Briefing Note,
Natural England, p 23
Commission of the European Communities (2003) Council
directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. As
amended by the Accession Act of Austria, Finland and
Sweden (1995); Accession Act of the Czech Republic, the
Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic
of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of
Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland,
the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic (2003)
and Council Directive 2006/105/EC 20 November 2006
adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/
83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the
accession of Bulgaria and Romania. http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:
1992L0043:20070101:EN:HTM
Commission of the European Communities (2007) Guidance
document on Article 6 (4) of the Habitat Directive’ 92/43/
EEC: Clarification of the concepts of: alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest,
compensatory measures, overall coherence, opinion of the
Commission. European Commission, Brussels
Council of Europe (1996) Pan-European biological and landscape diversity strategy. Nature and environment No 74.
Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg, p 50
Council of Europe (2009) The Emerald Network. Network of
areas of special conservation interest. Council of Europe,
Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/
econetworks/Presentation_en.asp
Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D, Jiguet F (2008) Birds are
tracking climate warming, but not fast enough. Proc R Soc
B 275:2743–2748
Evans D (2006) The habitats of the European Union Habitats
Directive. Biol Env: Proc Royal Irish Acad 106b:167–
173
Harris LD (1984) The fragmented forest: island biogeography
theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 229
Hepcan S, Coskun Hepkan Ç, Bouwma IM, Jongman RHG,
Özkan B (2009) Ecological networks as a new way to
nature conservation in Turkey; a case study for Izmir
province. Landsc Urban Plan 90(3/4):143–155
Jedrzejewski B, Jedrzejewski W (2008) The influence of the
fragmentation of nature on populations of animals. Conference proceedings: implementation of the concept of
ecological networks in Poland
Je˛drzejewski W, Nowak S, Stachura K, Skierczyński M,
Mysłajek RW, Niedziałkowski K, Je˛drzejewska B,
Wójcik JM, Zalewska H, Pilot M (2005) Projekt korytarzy
ekologicznych ła˛cza˛cych Europejska˛ Sieć Natura 2000 w
Polsce. (Proprosal for ecological corridors linking Natura
2000). Phare Project PL0105.02 Implementation of the
European Ecological Network in Poland, p 86
Jongman RHG (2002) Homogenisation and fragmentation of
the European landscape: ecological consequences and
solutions. Landsc Urban Plan 58:211–221
PR
OO
F
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
Jongman RHG, Pungetti GP (2004) Ecological networks and
greenways, concept, design and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jongman RHG, Külvik M, Kristiansen I (2004) European
ecological networks and greenways. Landsc Urban Plan
68:305–319
Jongman RHG, Bouwma IM, Van Doorn A (2006a) Indicative
map of the pan-European ecological network in Western
Europe. Technical Background Document. Alterra Report
1429, p 103
Jongman RHG, Bunce RGH, Metzger MJ, Mücher CA,
Howard DC, Mateus VL (2006b) A statistical environmental stratification of Europe: objectives and applications. Landscape Ecol 21:409–419
Kettunen M, Terry A, Tucker G, Jones A (2007) Guidance on
the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna—Guidance on the implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/
EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/
EEC). Institute for European Environmental Policy
(IEEP), London
Loveland TR, Belward AS (1997) The IGBP-DIS global 1 km
land cover data set, DISCover first results. Int J Remote
Sens 18(5):3289–3295
Mander Ü, Külvik M, Jongman RHG (2003) Scaling in territorial ecological networks. Landschap 20(2):113–127
Manzano P, Malo JE, Peco B (2005) Sheep gut passage and
survival of Mediterranean shrub seeds. Seed Sci Res
15(1):21–28
Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Mücher CA, Watkins
JW (2005) A statistical stratification of the environment of
Europe. J Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:549–563
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (2006)
Agenda voor een vitaal platteland, Meerjarenprogramma
2007–2013. Government document presented to the Parliament, p 156
Mücher CA, Champeaux JL, Steinnocher KT, Griguolo S,
Wester K, Heunks C, Winiwater W, Kressler P, Goutorbe
JP, ten Brink B, van Katwijk VF, Furberg O, Perdigao V,
Nieuwenhuis GJA (2001) Development of a consistent
methodology to derive land cover information on a
European scale from remote sensing for environmental
monitoring. The PELCOM report, p 160
Noss RF (1992) The wildlands project: land conservation
strategy. Wild Earth (Special Issue), 10–25
Phillips A (2003) Turning ideas on their head, the new paradigm for protected areas. George Wright Forum 20:8–32
Rientjes S, Roumelioti K (2003) Support for ecological networks in European nature conservation, an indicative
social map. ECNC Technical report series, p 55
Rodoman BB (1974) Polarization of landscape as a manage
agent in protection of biosphere and recreational resources. In: Resursy, Sreda, Rasselenije Moscow, Nauka,
pp 150–162 (in Russian)
Scott DA, Rose PM (1996) Atlas of Anatidae populations in
Africa and Western Eurasia. Wetlands International Publication, Wageningen, p 41
Sobolev NA, Shvarts EA, Kreindlin ML, Mokievsky VO,
Zubakin VA (1995) Russia’s protected areas: a survey and
identification of development problems. Biodivers Conserv 4:964–983
Somma D, Aued MB, Bachman L (2004) The ecological
Networks development in the Yungas, Argentina: planning, economic and social aspects. In: Jongman RHG,
Pungetti G (eds) Ecological networks and greenways,
concept, design and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 251–269
Ssymank A, Balzer S, Ulrich K (2005) Biotopverbund und
Kohärenz nach Artikel 10 der flora-fauna-habitat richtlinie; ergebnisse eines internationalen workshops auf der
Insel Vilm. Natursch Landsch 38(2):45–49
Swenson JE (2000) Action plan for the conservation of the
Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe group of experts on
conservation of large Carnivores, Oslo, p 9
Von Haaren C, Reich M (2006) The German way to greenways
and habitat networks. Landsc Urban Plan 76:7–22
Vos CC, Berry P, Opdam P, Baveco H, Nijhof B, O’Hanley J,
Bell C, Kuipers H (2008) Adapting landscapes to climate
change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks
and priority adaptation zones. J Appl Ecol 45:1722–1731
PR
OO
F
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
Author Proof
Landscape Ecol
123
Journal : Medium 10980
Dispatch : 31-12-2010
Article No. : 9567
h LE
Pages : 16
h TYPESET
MS Code : LAND-10-2347
4 CP
h
4 DISK
h
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993